County Councillors vote for uniting Derbyshire in local government reorganisation

Photo © Dave Bevis (cc-by-sa/2.0)

Councillors at Derbyshire County Council voted in favour of Cabinet proposing one single council for the whole of Derby and Derbyshire as the council’s preferred option for local government reorganisation, at a Full Council meeting held on Thursday 13th November.

Cabinet Members at the county council will now meet on 27th November to formally approve the final version ahead of the deadline for submitting a final proposal to Government on 28th November.

Government asked the council to look at ways to combine existing councils in Derby and Derbyshire into a smaller number of unitary councils which look after all services for their area, from social care, education, roads and children’s services to bin collections, housing, parks and leisure.

Derbyshire currently has 2 tiers of council – the county council is the upper tier and 8 district and borough councils are the lower tier. Both are responsible for different services. Derby has a single tier – one council providing all services in the city.

Having debated the issue at the Full Council meeting, 35 councillors voted in favour of creating one council, 17 opposed the idea and two abstained from voting. It follows financial analysis which showed the single council option was the most cost-effective by a huge margin.

Compared to the current local government system in Derby and Derbyshire, a single unitary council would save at least £144 million after six years and £45.1m per year from then onwards.

Compared to options the council put forward for two-councils, that is a saving of at least an extra £100m over the first 6 years and at least an extra £20m every year from then onwards.

Feedback from residents, businesses and partners on the options put forward by the county council for creating two new unitary councils showed more people were opposed to them than were in favour and there was significant concern about splitting the county into more than one authority.

Leader of Derbyshire County Council, Councillor Alan Graves said: “It’s clear that creating a single unitary council covering the whole of Derby and Derbyshire is in the best interests of all residents and businesses in the area.

“Creating one new council would save millions of pounds every year compared to the current system of local government and options for creating two unitary councils. It would also cost less to set-up and would be less disruptive as major county council services such as adult care and highways would not need to be separated out over two areas – which would be more costly as our financial analysis shows.

“Derbyshire and Derby City share a proud identity, strong communities, and a forward-looking spirit. Our rich history is part of what makes this area the place we all know and love and one council would unite Derbyshire and retain our proud and deep-rooted identity instead of splitting the county in two. 

“By introducing area committees and local teams based in towns and neighbourhoods as part of a single unitary council system, we believe this would strike the right balance between reflecting the individual needs of communities and delivering services in the most efficient and effective way while keeping the county whole.”

Local district and borough councils have been working with Derby City Council on a separate proposal to submit to Government.

Government is expected to carry out a statutory consultation on all submitted proposals early in 2026.

Benefits of reducing 10 councils to one single unitary council for Derby and Derbyshire include:

• Substantially larger savings than the council’s options for two new unitary councils – estimated savings of at least £144 million over six years and £45.1 million annually thereafter.
• Savings would support long-term running of essential services able to meet future demands.
• One budget, one point of responsibility, and clearer accountability.
• Simpler, fairer, and more responsive services across city and county.
• Lower upfront costs to set-up.
• Continuation of major essential services without the challenge, cost and risk of splitting them in in two – particularly those with high demand and costs such as adult social care, children’s social care, highways and transport, public health, and waste disposal
• Provides a good mix of urban and rural areas which helps make services more reliable and better able to cope with challenges.
• Local teams based in towns and neighbourhoods to ensure services remain visible and accessible.
• Able to focus on what matters most: better roads, safer streets, affordable homes, and support for families and older people.
• Fits with operating areas for all public sector key partners including the NHS, Police and EMCCA, which makes it easier to work with them
• Greater efficiency, strengthening partnerships with health, the regional mayor, police, and voluntary organisations.
• Speaking with one voice for the county, providing a stronger voice regionally and nationally – including within the East Midlands Combined County Authority.
• Supports economic growth by linking housing, transport, skills, and business needs.
• Greater ability to attract investment, jobs, and regeneration across all areas, building on the area’s strengths in innovation, engineering, and advanced manufacturing.
• Reflects that residents generally did not favour a North/South two-council split
• Protecting the historic county boundary and local identity.

Disadvantages of creating two new unitary councils for Derby and Derbyshire include:

• Introducing a new geographical split that lacks public support or recognition.
• Would be complex to set up and cause disruption for residents with major essential services needing to be split in two – particularly those with high demand and costs such as adult social care, children’s social care, highways and transport, public health, and waste disposal
• Does not meet Government criteria for minimum population size in most scenarios.
• Savings are minimal and the financial benefits are limited compared to the cost of putting it in place.
• Creates difficult boundaries for Derbyshire Dales and Amber Valley, which do not divide cleanly north–south.
• Risks diluting Derby City’s identity and undermining its delivery expertise.
• Smaller areas of local government have less flexibility to meet housing demands than larger ones.